Give me ONE reason...

[Mechagodzilla]

well i just gave it a shot a few posts back... this thread wasnt 'give me one reason and ill shutup'... it was just give me one reason. you did. good for you. as ive said, if you have a legitimate reason for not liking bush, then more power to you.

im here to do my part in rectifying the incessant amount of lies floating around concerning iraq, the saudis. war for oil, etc... ive been so active on political forums and michaelmoore forums debating and arguing such topics, i totally forgot about the moral issues (abortion, gay rights, etc...) lmao. :angel:

essentially i just enjoy debating politics and current events.

But so far you haven't really proven anything, and have only proved to me that you don't really understand the Iraq war.

It seems you're concerned all but entirely with disproving Michael Moore and showing up anyone who respects the opinion presented in his movie.

The problem is that his movie is an op-ed comedy-drama piece. Was kinda stretching the truth at points? Yeah, sure. Was it's overall message diminished? No. He might have had some conspiracy theories, but they weren't presented as gospel truth or anything.

If you're looking to discredit Moore, you really should read that book I mentioned. It takes away all the glitz, the funny conspiracy theories, and the showmanship but leaves the same point: Bush is not dealing with counter-terrorism in an effective way at all, especially in attacking Iraq.

 

[othello]

Umm you are using Bush numbers now. The population of the United States is not even 300 million. I would venture to say no more than 30% watched.

bush's speeches arent just shown to the US population. i was guesstimating.

Bush has not outlined his plan for the future but has spent his time defending what the majority believes was a mistake and pointing out his opponents flaws (opinion of course). He needs to focus on the issues that concern Americans AS WELL as the war in IRAQ. I think we all agree we need to finish that war but he is neglecting his other duties. In my opinion.

well the problem, imo, is that too many people are so uneducated about the war in iraq and still think it was some sort of lie and mistake and what not. the other problem being, that bush hasnt cleared any of that up to a satisfactory extent yet.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

rocks? are rocks human? do they have sexual organs?

Sure, miss my point. Did you read the huge thread I linked to? All these arguments have already been adressed and extensively disproven.

a computer isnt essential to the furthering of human existence. a heterosexual (two actually) human, is.

Humanity isn't going to die out just because the gays aren't churning out babies.

i never said they didnt exist. i said that we would have, at least one, civilizations of homosexuals... if it were, indeed, natural.

In a similar argument, there is no civilizaton to my knowledge that is purely straight. using your same logic, it must Obviously be natural for gays to exist in small numbers. So, a gay minority is a vaid part of every society. Let's treat them as such.

and what is that point exactly? that if homosexuals are to be banned from marriage because they cant reproduce, then so should the infertile? well i dont agree with that, you can control infertility. homosexuality is a choice.

Wrong. Infertility in many cases is irreversible. So what then? The infertile couple adopts? or finds a surrogate? gays can do those things just as easilly too.

And marriage has no bearing on reproduction. You can reproduce without marriage too.

Sheesh, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Simply put, these are all (terrible) reasons for why gays shouldn't exist.
Since you obviously will allow them to exist, then these points are irrelevant have no purpose in justifying a gay marriage ban.

 

[bliink]

othello, you've argued with the whole forum for (an almost heroic) 14 pages.... tired yet? lol

 

[othello]

But so far you haven't really proven anything, and have only proved to me that you don't really understand the Iraq war.

hah! how so? please enlighten me.

It seems you're concerned all but entirely with disproving Michael Moore and showing up anyone who respects the opinion presented in his movie.

The problem is that his movie is an op-ed comedy-drama piece. Was kinda stretching the truth at points? Yeah, sure. Was it's overall message diminished? No. He might have had some conspiracy theories, but they weren't presented as gospel truth or anything.

op-ed comedy-drama? are you kidding me? youll buy that bs, but when evidence refutes your allegations against the bush administration, you dismiss it immediately? who's the closed-minded one again? the movie, in moore's own words, is a work of non-fiction, a 100% irrefutable documentary. he latered changed that label to 'his version of the facts' when so much evidence refuted this "100% irrefutable", so-called, documentary. if you are seriously defending this movie under that 'op-ed comedy drama' bullshit, then i have to seriously doubt your credibility on any other issues.

If you're looking to discredit Moore, you really should read that book I mentioned. It takes away all the glitz, the funny conspiracy theories, and the showmanship but leaves the same point: Bush is not dealing with counter-terrorism in an effective way at all, especially in attacking Iraq.

like i said, ill check it out.

 

[Sprafa]

Simple.

the USA is now isolated in all forms. The single country where the great majority of the populace supports the current Amerikan policy is Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning.

Although during several times level of disaproval agaisnt the USA was high, never before it reached comparable levels. Remember the protest around the World agaisnt the Iraq Invasion ?
Bigger than any others ever registered. Even during Vietnam, there was nothing comparable.

Most policies from both candidates are pretty much the same, with the exception that Bush is again promising to lower taxes (maybe like he did before, lowering for the rich but increasing for the poor) to get more votes.

The Arabs hate Bush for ruining their chances of unity. The Asians hate Bush because the NK mess. The European hate Bush for ruining their pretty Union with the division over Iraq. Latin America just plainly hates Bush for being such an ass with their leaders.

Again, both candidates policies are pretty much the same. There is only the fundamental difference that Kerry should push more if the whole "Paris decides" slogan hadn't stupidified half of Amerika. The World hates Bush, and Kerry can bring in fresh credibility.

 

[othello]

the deed of this forum has BEEN done, you have been given MANY MANY MANY MANY reasons, and though you come up with worthless babble on a few points, there have been many points you have failed to adress bypassing the ONE reason you wanted..

i would contend that many of the reasons i have been given are nothing more than worthless babble. and its very hard to debate 6 pages behind the thread itself. you continue to say im ignoring posts and points and whatever... im just trying to catch up. if my rebuttals are 'worthless' then stop reading it, as you are duped beyond reconciliation. i think ive responded to one of your posts already... pretty 'worthless' imo.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

hah! how so? please enlighten me.

op-ed comedy-drama? are you kidding me? youll buy that bs, but when evidence refutes your allegations against the bush administration, you dismiss it immediately? who's the closed-minded one again? the movie, in moore's own words, is a work of non-fiction, a 100% irrefutable documentary. he latered changed that label to 'his version of the facts' when so much evidence refuted this "100% irrefutable", so-called, documentary. if you are seriously defending this movie under that 'op-ed comedy drama' bullshit, then i have to seriously doubt your credibility on any other issues.

like i said, ill check it out.

See, now this is your real point here isn't it? You want to call anyone who liked the movie a boor and a moron and to immediately disregard the opinion of anyone who says otherwise.
You should have just titled the thread "prove to me that Michael Moore isn't a huge babykiller with a smelly movie".

Moore has already stated that the movie is an opinion piece.

He takes facts, interprets them, and then presents his opinion.
Just like those "56 deciets" which are all but entirely based on the opposite opinions, and how the rebuttals to theose points are based agian on a reversal of opinion.

Yes, Moore exagerates the meaning behind the facts, but nothing in the movie is a flat-out lie. It's all opinion presented with dramatic flair.

 

[othello]

Yep. Real, valid reasons have been given.

When Othello said "give me one reason", he really meant "theres nothing you could possibly say to make me change my mind."

Thanks for wasting our time, Othello. I wrote out a really good post, in my own words. It would have been nice to know from the start that it was just falling on deaf ears.

as i have gone through 8 pages, i dont remember your post. i doubt i didnt respond to it... as ive been trying to respond to everyones post. my ears arent 'deaf', they are well-grounded and backed by hours and hours of research and experience... as well as many, many, many other political and intellectual debates.

my opinions have been formed, so have yours... and so have every other member. my issue with the ones that arent factual or logical. this thread, as i have stated, wasnt 'give me one reason and ill shutup'... i was trying to see why people on this forum dont like him, and do my part to correct some of the misconceptions.

 

[othello]

- How about universal health care?
- Or the environment?

You people are not very good at providing reasons. You keep on harping on the same ones.

-universal health care

as i said somewhere, i honestly dont believe universal health care will ever be realized in the USA. its not as great as its cracked up to be. even according to kerrys plan, millions of people wont be covered.

-the environment

i said this in response to another post as well, nearly every single environmental act proposed by the bush administration as been backed and supported by the democrats. ted kennedy even commended bush for giving them (dems) what they wanted, in regards to the environment.

 

[Sprafa]

As I've said before, to keep the big green war machine alive, the USA can't afford a universal health care or even a good quality of life.

the USA are the biggest economy in the World, yet they aren't on the top 10 of the highest quality of life.

 

[othello]

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion


a long ass post ensues

interesting read... but i never said it was founded on the christian religion. i sad 52 out 55 founding fathers professed a belief in the Lord, and that our country was founded on christian/Biblical principles. in fact, the Bible was referenced many times during the writing of our nations crucial documents (bill of rights, constitution, dec. of ind., etc)...

 

[Jakeic]

The war in Iraq was a mistake. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, wasn't planning on getting any wmd's, and was not used by Al-Queda as a base of operations. Most of the voting public still believes that Saddam was in the planning of 9/11, they got that notion from the Bush administration since it was drilled into our heads for about six months. Regardless if Bush lied or not, he mislead the people of the United States, by using bad inteligence. Whether he did it knowingly or not is not an issue, the fact that he didn't care to make certain seems to me that it should be as bad as lying. If one thing that comes from the entire fiasco, it should be that bad inteligence is worse than no inteligence.

Furthermore, the way the war in Iraq was handled was far from adequate. It was quite clear that it was intended to be a show of our superiority and how much good we were doing in the world, not only for other nations, but for the US citizenship as well. From Shock and Awe to claiming we'd be viewed as great liberators to declaring victory rather primaturely, the Bush administration has shown a rather lack of common sense in the way they did their business in the world. To further enrage those of us who feel Bush screwed up in Iraq, one of their own men (don't remember his exact capacity in Iraq, but it was something rather important) is quoted as saying that we never had enough troops on the ground in Iraq to occupy the country.

And if that was enough, the lack of troops, lack of vision to see the problems that were going to sprout in iraq, and our inability to train enough Iraqi's is going to prevent all of Iraq from participating in their first election (that's straight from Rumsfield).

If that wasn't enough, other rogue nations that are part of the axis of evil, have further developed their nuclear weapons program under Bush's watch. This is not to say that he could of stopped them short of an invasion, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't being covered inside the US because it makes us look so freaking inept. Here we went and attacked Iraq because of WMD's and ties to Al-Queda, and then we go and let Iran do as it pleases, even though Iran really does have WMD's and ties to Al-Queda.

All of that without even touching how we alienated ourselves from the European nations and domestic issues.

 

[othello]

im sorry othello but it seems you started this as a defend bush thread.
even though you are bashing people for links that are bias'd. Where you have been asked a few times to provide your evidence but have yet to give a single link

several times? i can think of maybe 2 occasions. and where did i bash someones link for being biased? i bashed someones link for being incompetent, but not for its bias.

 

[Jakeic]

oh, and you guys should read some of the stuff Al Franken writes, it is quite enjoyable.

 

[othello]

I'm am curious where you got that statistic from. Also, it doesn't really say much as professing a faith in the Lord is not synomous with christianity.

Furthermore, it has little relevance to the discussion as those same founding fathers were adament about a seperation of church and state. So their religious views have little to do with it as their views on government are the primary concern.

I'm not saying that christian principles didn't influence things as I'm sure they probably did. But I don't see the correlation between that fact and government policies today.

do you even know what seperation of church and state was, originally?

 

[Burn]

Cus he is a stinky old meanie.

I dunno.. >_>

 

[othello]

oh, and you guys should read some of the stuff Al Franken writes, it is quite enjoyable.

and watch fahrenheit 9/11 while your at it. al franken is as worthless as ann coulter... just nowhere near as hot lmao.

 

[othello]

Actually I care who he votes for and I think him trying to convert others is admirable. Although I think his tactics are a little rough around the edges. He believes in something and is willing to fight for it. That is more than most Americans are willing to do. They just lay down and vote with their party or who they think the majority are voting for... although I at this point would not vote for Bush

hey thanks for the somewhat subtle encouragement. thats the first positive thing ive heard directed at me all day! i believe very strongly in spreading the truth, as i understand it to be, about current events, especially in relation to bush and michael moore. its disheartening when i am immediately labeled as a 'foxnews bushie' or whatever, as such is certainly not the case.

i dont even watch fox news... i do support george bush, but i dont think he is perfect in any way, shape, or form. im just so tired of this trend to hate bush, or 'anybody but bush!', or whatever. its absurd. at least half the people that have responded to this thread clearly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and its very sad that some will be voting in a few weeks.

 

[Jakeic]

I never said Al Franken was the foremost authority on politics or that his stuff is factual to any degree. I said it was enjoyable.

 

[othello]

It's especially scary when church and state are supposed to remain seperate, yet the physical personification of state is also a self-professed personification of god's will.

says who? as i asked a few posts ago, do you even know what the original meaning of seperation of church and state is? or where it came from?

 

[othello]

I never said Al Franken was the foremost authority on politics or that his stuff is factual to any degree. I said it was enjoyable.

fair enough.

 

[othello]

There is a lot I know nothing about. I can admit this. Can you?

absolutely. i know very little about stem cell research. :thumbs:

 

[othello]

othello, you've argued with the whole forum for (an almost heroic) 14 pages.... tired yet? lol

god so tired... this took up all my cs time... its almost 5am. i tried to respond to everyones post. i know i missed some. if someone feels they had a valid point that was skipped over or whatnot, please feel free to remind me, im on page 14 so im very close to the end and will be going to bed very soon...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

says who? as i asked a few posts ago, do you even know what the original meaning of seperation of church and state is? or where it came from?

Bush has said himseflf the he manifests god's will. He says god told him to invade Iraq, and he did.


And church and state is basically what keeps the constitution from falling apart, is what it is.

Law is secular for a reason. If you do not understand that reason, then you have no place refuting it.

 

[Jakeic]

wouldn't the seperation of church and state come from the first admendment?

or if you mean the idea of a wall between church and state, it came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which he used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in response to why he did not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving. That led to the phrase "Separation of church and state".

 

[Jakeic]

What is scarier.

Bush doesn't believe that god speaks to him, or that he does believe god speaks to him?

The basic notion that christians believe that they hear god's voice when they pray is a falacy (as far as my knowledge as a catholic goes). We are taught that prayer froms a relationship between you and the lord, but god never speaks.

However, I dislike the catholic faith.

 

[othello]

Simple.

the USA is now isolated in all forms. The single country where the great majority of the populace supports the current Amerikan policy is Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning.

i disagree... we still have plenty of allies.

Although during several times level of disaproval agaisnt the USA was high, never before it reached comparable levels. Remember the protest around the World agaisnt the Iraq Invasion ?
Bigger than any others ever registered. Even during Vietnam, there was nothing comparable.

i remember... but what does that prove? nothing. just that a lot of people disagreed. im glad our president didnt listen to those hippie protestors around the world, and instead listened to the leaders of countries around the world who advocated his decision.

Most policies from both candidates are pretty much the same, with the exception that Bush is again promising to lower taxes (maybe like he did before, lowering for the rich but increasing for the poor) to get more votes.

the tax burden still falls on the rich, even though kerry find the loopholes, theres a post a little ways back explaining that.

The Arabs hate Bush for ruining their chances of unity.

please. the arabs are more untied now than ever.

The Asians hate Bush because the NK mess.

an ever-changing mess which is not over. kind of like iraq lol.

The European hate Bush for ruining their pretty Union with the division over Iraq.

more like they hate bush for removing saddam because they had special designated oil fields, provided by saddam, if they voted against the UN resolution.

Latin America just plainly hates Bush for being such an ass with their leaders.

maybe because its so late, but im not following on this one.

Again, both candidates policies are pretty much the same. There is only the fundamental difference that Kerry should push more if the whole "Paris decides" slogan hadn't stupidified half of Amerika. The World hates Bush, and Kerry can bring in fresh credibility.

well theres a fundamental problem with that paragraph. kerry has no credibility...

 

[othello]

Bush has said himseflf the he manifests god's will. He says god told him to invade Iraq, and he did.


And church and state is basically what keeps the constitution from falling apart, is what it is.

Law is secular for a reason. If you do not understand that reason, then you have no place refuting it.

seperation of church and state is found nowhere in the constitution and is in no-way a 'right' of any sort.

 

[othello]

wouldn't the seperation of church and state come from the first admendment?

or if you mean the idea of a wall between church and state, it came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which he used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in response to why he did not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving. That led to the phrase "Separation of church and state".

yes thats where the actual phrase comes from. the original meaning was more along the lines of they didnt want a goverment-mandated religion. as in, removal of state FROM church... not, in the context it is used today.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i believe very strongly in spreading the truth, as i understand it to be, about current events, especially in relation to bush and michael moore.

op-ed comedy-drama? are you kidding me? youll buy that bs, but when evidence refutes your allegations against the bush administration, you dismiss it immediately? who's the closed-minded one again? the movie, in moore's own words, is a work of non-fiction, a 100% irrefutable documentary.

(please note that no evidence has been presented at any point that refutes my "allegations" against anyone.)

according to the ignorant followers of michael moore, bush ignored a memo regarding OBL's plans to hijack planes and attack us

6) He won't admit he was wrong about the war, an incredibly dangerous attitude for a President to have I think. About the only current justification he can come up with is that Iraq might possibly come to have WMD's eventually, a claim that is not supported by the current intelligence reports. Question: were the lives of a thousand soldiers and the lives of several thousand Iraqi's worth losing over an unlikely possibility? Because that's what the President seems to think now. To sum it up, the Bush administration has no justification for why it went to war. Granted it was based on faulty intelligence, but to claim that the war was not a mistake is spitting in the face of reality and sets a bad prededent for similar future decisions. Pretty much every single time Bush or Cheney have tried to defend their postion on Iraq in the debates they have been caught lying by non-partisan fact checks.

like michael moore?

See? This thread is all about how much you hate michael moore. You get especially angry when addressing opinions that are similar to his, and jump on those posts specifically. You dropped his name repeatedly, although no-one else even mentioned it. You seemingly refuse to believe a single aspect of the film is in any way valid.

This isn't a pro-bush thread. It's an anti-moore thread. You've been waiting for over a dozen pages for someone to mention moore, just so that you could descend upon them like a vulture, and immediately declare them to be utterly wrong at everything.

Luckily I was that person, and I wasn't wrong.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

seperation of church and state is found nowhere in the constitution and is in no-way a 'right' of any sort.

So, you are for religious discrimination? Because that's what the merging of church and state is. It creates theocratic laws in a multi-theology country.

 

[othello]

The war in Iraq was a mistake. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction,

not true.

wasn't planning on getting any wmd's,

not true.

and was not used by Al-Queda as a base of operations.

meh... ill concede that one.

Most of the voting public still believes that Saddam was in the planning of 9/11, they got that notion from the Bush administration since it was drilled into our heads for about six months. Regardless if Bush lied or not, he mislead the people of the United States, by using bad inteligence. Whether he did it knowingly or not is not an issue, the fact that he didn't care to make certain seems to me that it should be as bad as lying. If one thing that comes from the entire fiasco, it should be that bad inteligence is worse than no inteligence.

what?!?!! of course its an issue. knowingly saying something inaccurate is far worse than doing it unknowingly. and thats the whole point, he was given inaccurate intel... how is that his fault? please tell me how bush is supposed to verify intel given to him by the CIA, the worlds premiere intelligence gathering agency that has been relied on by every president since its foundation. is he supposed to call up the iraq undercover sources and ask if this shit is really, really true... come on.

F

urthermore, the way the war in Iraq was handled was far from adequate. It was quite clear that it was intended to be a show of our superiority and how much good we were doing in the world, not only for other nations, but for the US citizenship as well. From Shock and Awe to claiming we'd be viewed as great liberators to declaring victory rather primaturely, the Bush administration has shown a rather lack of common sense in the way they did their business in the world. To further enrage those of us who feel Bush screwed up in Iraq, one of their own men (don't remember his exact capacity in Iraq, but it was something rather important) is quoted as saying that we never had enough troops on the ground in Iraq to occupy the country.

a lot of that is your opinion, and thats fine. i do feel like we completely underestimated the amount of resistance we were going to receive in iraq. kind of ironic, the place that supposedly has no connections to terrorists is being violently defended by al-qaeda and other terrorist groups... more so than afghanistan ever was.

And if that was enough, the lack of troops, lack of vision to see the problems that were going to sprout in iraq, and our inability to train enough Iraqi's is going to prevent all of Iraq from participating in their first election (that's straight from Rumsfield).

If that wasn't enough, other rogue nations that are part of the axis of evil, have further developed their nuclear weapons program under Bush's watch. This is not to say that he could of stopped them short of an invasion, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't being covered inside the US because it makes us look so freaking inept. Here we went and attacked Iraq because of WMD's and ties to Al-Queda, and then we go and let Iran do as it pleases, even though Iran really does have WMD's and ties to Al-Queda.

All of that without even touching how we alienated ourselves from the European nations and domestic issues.

well worded response... do you mind if i get back to this tomorrow? its almost 5:30am and im about to pass out.

 

[othello]

However, I dislike the catholic faith.

hey hey! so does john kerry! :E

 

[othello]

So, you are for religious discrimination? Because that's what the merging of church and state is. It creates theocratic laws in a multi-theology country.

not necessarily, im just against people parading the phrase around as some sort of constitutional right.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

not true.

not true.

Hey, sound like fun! Let me try:

"Is Michael Morre's movie open to interpretation."

not true.

"The Iraq war a total mess of wasted lives and opportunities."

not true.

"You haven't presented much valid evidence of anything, and are clearly not open to other opinions."

not true.

Wow, I guess you can go to sleep. I found a system in which I can answer for you! It's easy! I don't even need to think or try.

The problem is all those things are true.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

hey hey! so does john kerry! :E

Uh, Kerry is Catholic.

He is just not going to let his faith interfere with the secular law.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

not necessarily, im just against people parading the phrase around as some sort of constitutional right.

It's not a right at all, and no-one is calling it one. However, it is the philosophy which allows constitutional rights to exist. It is inherently tied to constitutional rights.

The entire american legal system is based on secularity. Adding any religious influence over that is inherently discriminatory.

Edit: Ack, triple post. Sorry, folks. I'm thinking too fast.

 

[Eightball]

He tricked you americans into thinking there were "weapons of mass destruction" and now that they havent found any, and over 1000 americans have died in vien to capture one man.

What else? he is a tool...


he seems very immature and doesnt seem to think his comments through before speaking..


um... want more??


in his debates he just says that he will continue to do all the things hes started instead of giving new ideas.

lets forget that he took you fools to war for no reason and pretend there wasnt a war... he is still a buffoon and doesnt deserve to be a president.
he has ruined your relationships with other countries and doesnt think about the global situation.

 

[Jakeic]

not true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3721000/3721962.stm

I made a mistake when I said Saddam didn't want any WMD's, however, your arguement that sanctions were not working is simply not accurate.

what?!?!! of course its an issue. knowingly saying something inaccurate is far worse than doing it unknowingly. and thats the whole point, he was given inaccurate intel... how is that his fault? please tell me how bush is supposed to verify intel given to him by the CIA, the worlds premiere intelligence gathering agency that has been relied on by every president since its foundation. is he supposed to call up the iraq undercover sources and ask if this shit is really, really true... come on.

I would argue that knowingly or unknowingly is not an issue. Being the most powerful man in the world, he should of double checked his sources. It would be interesting to know how many operatives we had in Iraq before we invaded. I would think not very many.

You are right, a few nations were bought off by iraq, but regardless of their reasons for not going to war, they were still right.